much a part of Jacksonville as downtown and riverside are? Orange Park is a separate city that surrounds Jax therefor it is a suburb according to the true definition.
It's because they used to be separate cities. Or at least named areas of unincorporated Duval County, pre-consolidation. I think the definition of suburbs means "extra urban" as in outside the urban core. I've always heard the nickname "bedroom community" referring to cities like Orange Park that are within driving distance of a major city for work, but to which people return at night instead of living in the major city.
Not to mention that Orange Park is in an entirely seperate county.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 13, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
It's because they used to be separate cities. Or at least named areas of unincorporated Duval County, pre-consolidation. I think the definition of suburbs means "extra urban" as in outside the urban core. I've always heard the nickname "bedroom community" referring to cities like Orange Park that are within driving distance of a major city for work, but to which people return at night instead of living in the major city.
^ What she said.
It's also worth noting that the word "suburb" has numerous connotations. Although it's often meant to refer to a town (or settlement) that lies outside the boundaries of a city or larger town, it can also mean an area that is considered outlying even if it is technically within the limits of the city.
Jacksonville only has a handful of true suburbs: the Beaches, Orange Park and northern St Johns County come to mind. But if you consider how far-flung many of the areas of Jacksonville are, they certainly are suburbs in almost every sense of the word.
Yes, there's no exact definition, especially in a city like Jacksonville where there's no official line differentiating between urban and suburban areas.
When Westside, Arlington, etc. are described as suburbs, it's not because they're not part of Jacksonville, it's because they've developed in ways that are traditionally considered "suburban". They're primarily residential communities away from the "old city", and are populated by people who commute elsewhere to work. Commercial and business areas are segregated from residential areas and are usually primarily accessible by car. In contrast, neighborhoods like downtown and Riverside have "urban" design - they have mixed uses in a single area, they're (theoretically) denser, they're walkable rather than being reliant on cars, etc.
^^Yeah, what he said.
Quote from: Jax101 on June 13, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
much a part of Jacksonville as downtown and riverside are? Orange Park is a separate city that surrounds Jax therefor it is a suburb according to the true definition.
Here is the definition of suburb from webster:
a: an outlying part of a city or town
b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb A suburb can be a part of a city and still be an outlying developed part of that city. The actual traditionally developed City of Jacksonville is less than 30 square miles. Many areas of town such as parts of the Westside and Arlington were suburbs that became "Jacksonville" with the consolidation of the city/county in 1968. However, just because they have a Jacksonville address now doesn't necessarily make them urban, which is a characteristic of the original city's development pattern.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6961-1937.jpg)
From a development standpoint, I typically consider every area of Jacksonville outside of the shaded pre-consolidated city limits (shown above) to be suburban.
The true "city" of Jacksonville had 200,000 residents within a +30 square mile area defined with higher density, fairly compact building fabric, gridded streets, and a mix of uses. Area's such as Lake Shore, Arlington and Lakewood were some of Jacksonville's earliest autocentric suburbs with development characteristics opposite of the original city. When we consolidated in 1968, that didn't mean the "city" grew. Our municipal taxing structure changed but the actual "city" (in a built sense) remains roughly the same size, although it's declined nearly 50% in population since 1950. Meaning Jacksonville is just like Detroit, except Detroit is larger and its suburbs are separate municipalities (like Murray Hill and Mandarin once were). I have this debate on a regular basis with Jacksonville residents because we typically confuse "city", in terms of built environment and municipal taxation structure. From my view, we have a city and suburbs with a shared form of government.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Jax101 on June 13, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
much a part of Jacksonville as downtown and riverside are? Orange Park is a separate city that surrounds Jax therefor it is a suburb according to the true definition.
Here is the definition of suburb from webster:
a: an outlying part of a city or town
b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb
A suburb can be a part of a city and still be an outlying developed part of that city. The actual traditionally developed City of Jacksonville is less than 30 square miles. Many areas of town such as parts of the Westside and Arlington were suburbs that became "Jacksonville" with the consolidation of the city/county in 1968. However, just because they have a Jacksonville address now doesn't necessarily make them urban, which is a characteristic of the original city's development pattern.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6961-1937.jpg)
From a development standpoint, I typically consider every area of Jacksonville outside of the shaded pre-consolidated city limits (shown above) to be suburban.
The true "city" of Jacksonville had 200,000 residents within a +30 square mile area defined with higher density, fairly compact building fabric, gridded streets, and a mix of uses. Area's such as Lake Shore, Arlington and Lakewood were some of Jacksonville's earliest autocentric suburbs with development characteristics opposite of the original city. When we consolidated in 1968, that didn't mean the "city" grew. Our municipal taxing structure changed but the actual "city" (in a built sense) remains roughly the same size, although it's declined nearly 50% in population since 1950. Meaning Jacksonville is just like Detroit, except Detroit is larger and its suburbs are separate municipalities (like Murray Hill and Mandarin once were). I have this debate on a regular basis with Jacksonville residents because we typically confuse "city", in terms of built environment and municipal taxation structure. From my view, we have a city and suburbs with a shared form of government.
Great info, thanks. If they would just have forced the developers to build in a more orderly fashioned, with straight roads and city blocks all the way through, and if zoning laws were only passed with a little more foresight, we wouldn't have this big mess we have now out in the suburbs.
^Yes, I do believe that different land use and zoning standards, along with supportive transportation infrastructure investment could have created a much more sustainable environment for Jacksonville. Unfortunately, what's done is now done. However, we can learn from our mistakes of the past and build upon the infrastructure we do have to create a more viable community for both the urban core and suburbs.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Jax101 on June 13, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
much a part of Jacksonville as downtown and riverside are? Orange Park is a separate city that surrounds Jax therefor it is a suburb according to the true definition.
Here is the definition of suburb from webster:
a: an outlying part of a city or town
b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb
A suburb can be a part of a city and still be an outlying developed part of that city. The actual traditionally developed City of Jacksonville is less than 30 square miles. Many areas of town such as parts of the Westside and Arlington were suburbs that became "Jacksonville" with the consolidation of the city/county in 1968. However, just because they have a Jacksonville address now doesn't necessarily make them urban, which is a characteristic of the original city's development pattern.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6961-1937.jpg)
From a development standpoint, I typically consider every area of Jacksonville outside of the shaded pre-consolidated city limits (shown above) to be suburban.
The true "city" of Jacksonville had 200,000 residents within a +30 square mile area defined with higher density, fairly compact building fabric, gridded streets, and a mix of uses. Area's such as Lake Shore, Arlington and Lakewood were some of Jacksonville's earliest autocentric suburbs with development characteristics opposite of the original city. When we consolidated in 1968, that didn't mean the "city" grew. Our municipal taxing structure changed but the actual "city" (in a built sense) remains roughly the same size, although it's declined nearly 50% in population since 1950. Meaning Jacksonville is just like Detroit, except Detroit is larger and its suburbs are separate municipalities (like Murray Hill and Mandarin once were). I have this debate on a regular basis with Jacksonville residents because we typically confuse "city", in terms of built environment and municipal taxation structure. From my view, we have a city and suburbs with a shared form of government.
Was Mandarin ever incorporated as a separate municipality? If so, I wonder why Mandarin chose to forsake its local government in favor of merging with Jacksonville - unlike the more independent-minded Baldwin, Atlantic Beach, Jacksonville Beach and Neptune Beach.
Quote from: Jax101 on June 13, 2012, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 13, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: Jax101 on June 13, 2012, 01:22:50 PM
much a part of Jacksonville as downtown and riverside are? Orange Park is a separate city that surrounds Jax therefor it is a suburb according to the true definition.
Here is the definition of suburb from webster:
a: an outlying part of a city or town
b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb
A suburb can be a part of a city and still be an outlying developed part of that city. The actual traditionally developed City of Jacksonville is less than 30 square miles. Many areas of town such as parts of the Westside and Arlington were suburbs that became "Jacksonville" with the consolidation of the city/county in 1968. However, just because they have a Jacksonville address now doesn't necessarily make them urban, which is a characteristic of the original city's development pattern.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6961-1937.jpg)
From a development standpoint, I typically consider every area of Jacksonville outside of the shaded pre-consolidated city limits (shown above) to be suburban.
The true "city" of Jacksonville had 200,000 residents within a +30 square mile area defined with higher density, fairly compact building fabric, gridded streets, and a mix of uses. Area's such as Lake Shore, Arlington and Lakewood were some of Jacksonville's earliest autocentric suburbs with development characteristics opposite of the original city. When we consolidated in 1968, that didn't mean the "city" grew. Our municipal taxing structure changed but the actual "city" (in a built sense) remains roughly the same size, although it's declined nearly 50% in population since 1950. Meaning Jacksonville is just like Detroit, except Detroit is larger and its suburbs are separate municipalities (like Murray Hill and Mandarin once were). I have this debate on a regular basis with Jacksonville residents because we typically confuse "city", in terms of built environment and municipal taxation structure. From my view, we have a city and suburbs with a shared form of government.
Great info, thanks. If they would just have forced the developers to build in a more orderly fashioned, with straight roads and city blocks all the way through, and if zoning laws were only passed with a little more foresight, we wouldn't have this big mess we have now out in the suburbs.
I doubt that the county government would have had as much foresight with regards to planning before 1968. You can observe examples of this disconnect along the pre-1968 city limits. I notice a subtle shift of land use along Cassat Avenue even now.
Mandarin became an incorporated town around 1841. However, I believe it had dissolved before the 1968 merger.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 13, 2012, 01:58:21 PM
It's because they used to be separate cities. Or at least named areas of unincorporated Duval County, pre-consolidation. I think the definition of suburbs means "extra urban" as in outside the urban core. I've always heard the nickname "bedroom community" referring to cities like Orange Park that are within driving distance of a major city for work, but to which people return at night instead of living in the major city.
Oh for the days when Arlington WAS a suburb. Today, sadly, its THE GHETTO,EAST :'(
What alot of people think as 'suburban, I think of as urban residential. It's hard to justify something being 'suburban' when you have sidewalks on both sides of the street, neighborhood food stores throughout, and freaking multiple bus lines, not exactly typical soccer mom paradise. For instance, to me there's nothing suburban about an area like Cleveland Rd & Moncrief.
Yeah, I'd say Cleveland and Moncrief is pretty suburban (including that old townhouse development). I know that area pretty well. My parents used to live off Soutel (Locksley Avenue) in the early 70s and my dad's Godparents used to live in a house on Kylan Drive until they passed in the late 80s. Although I grew up in Central Florida, during the 1980s, the Northside is where most of my time was spent in Jax when my parents would frequently take me and my brother to visit with children of the friends they met before moving away from Jax.
That area is suburban growth from the 1960s, which is different from the 1980s Baymeadows and 2000s Tinseltown/SJTC area. Like its mid-20th century counterparts (ex. Emerson, Arlington, Cedar Hills, etc.) it's aged over the last 50 years as newer suburbs have come to life. Locally, some would probably call that area "Inner City" because it now has a majority black population but its still suburban in terms of built environment.
Suburban doesn't mean you can't have corner stores, bus lines and sidewalks (although most of the local streets near Cleveland and Moncrief don't have sidewalks) on both sides of the street. In fact, in most major cities, their inner ring suburbs are more or just as walkable as Jacksonville's core. Here are a few images of Covington, KY, a 19th century suburb of Cincinnati:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820259182_o5EJ5-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820259115_bmqJj-M.jpg)
We've turned the word "suburban" into a dirty name due to associating the term with unsustainable sprawl but that doesn't mean you can't have good sustainable suburban development.
^People are just using the term "suburban" in different ways. When people are talking about "suburban" in reference to sprawling developments, they're usually thinking of the autocentric post-war suburbs, rather than the older inner ring/streetcar suburbs.
In this sense "suburban" is distinguished more temporally than spatially, since different cities grew at different times. Metro areas that had more of their growth before the automobile and the mass post-war suburbanization will have more of their environment built in the denser, more walkable mode, and the autocentric bedroom communities farther out. Meanwhile, metros that saw their greatest growth after that point, like Jacksonville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, etc., have much more of their total population in the auto suburbs compared to the older, walkable neighborhoods.
To me there's alot more meanings of an urban neighborhood than the typical Baltimore/Philly/NY/Covington two, three, or four story tenement-like housing with parallel parking along the sides of a narrow street.
^Sure, building types and street designs can change but there are common human scale characteristics, such as structures that interact with the public realm (street) at the pedestrian level. These characteristics are a few that are present within an urban district regardless if the place is Jacksonville, NYC, Savannah or Fernandina Beach.
Quote from: Jaxson on June 13, 2012, 09:27:54 PM
I doubt that the county government would have had as much foresight with regards to planning before 1968. You can observe examples of this disconnect along the pre-1968 city limits. I notice a subtle shift of land use along Cassat Avenue even now.
Keep in mind that back then, autocentric development
was considered foresight. People tended to look at cities as crowded and dirty, and the new suburbs where going to change that with open space and easy parking.
If we're going to have a discussion of urbanity, there's very little anywhere in the south that can be justified as "urban" relative to the way most of the US/world defines the term. I'd argue Savannah's historic downtown and NOLA's French District and Miami's South Beach are the only true "urban" areas in the South on a scale that is more than just a few blocks. My definition of the word has become more and more stringent as I travel more and actually work on urban projects in large gateway markets.
What I have found is that for the most part, the Walk Score city rankings list (top 50 metro areas) actually follows a pretty good indication of ranking the urbanity of those cities (sadly Jacksonville ranks last).
http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/
Even Riverside is less dense than many suburbs of northern cities, so yeah - the Westside and Arlington are completely suburbs and nothing more. In any other city they would be far enough out to even be their own municipalities.
^They could have been their own municipalities regardless. Cambridge is even closer to Boston yet it's its own city. The difference is that Boston is so old and so big that you have to go pretty far out to get to low-density bedroom communities like Arlington.
Unfortunately, we blew our densest neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Sugar Hill and LaVilla to bits in the second half of the 20th century. Anyway, I'd take Walkscore with a grain of salt. It weights municipal limits, thus any consolidated city with a large amount of rural and undeveloped land is going to fall to the bottom of the list. Take the pre-consolidated city limits and it will have a much higher Walkscore, although Jax would still not be a walkable mecca compared to the larger cities.
^^^You'd be surprised. Boston's density is in a very small area and then abruptly cuts off to sprawl and small towns with space in between. Those small towns, though (like Salem for instance) have nice city centers in and of themselves. Boston technically spreads very far like Atlanta because outside of the uber dense core it is very unplanned and the built environment is very spotty. I have college buddies from the Boston area (both south and north shore) who grew up with acreage, yet they are within 20 minutes of the city.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2012, 01:27:56 PM
Unfortunately, we blew our densest neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Sugar Hill and LaVilla to bits in the second half of the 20th century. Anyway, I'd take Walkscore with a grain of salt. It weights municipal limits, thus any consolidated city with a large amount of rural and undeveloped land is going to fall to the bottom of the list. Take the pre-consolidated city limits and it will have a much higher Walkscore, although Jax would still not be a walkable mecca compared to the larger cities.
I doubt no matter how they did the rankings Jax would advance much if at all. It needs better pedestrian awareness, better sidewalks, and it needs more places to walk up to in neighborhoods that a little bit denser and that facilitate walking. Charlotte's also real low because outside of downtown and Dilworth it's HORRIBLE, but its walking environments make up for it enough to put it ahead of Jax.
I agree with East Arlington and the westside (west of Avondale) being considered suburbs. I lived in Riverside for many years and now live by the Arlington Marina in the River Forest neighborhood of Arlington. I'm actually closer to downtown now than I was in Riverside - the main difference being I have to cross the river.
I don't think Jacksonville is very walkable, but those walk scores are pretty meaningless, and the "rankings" are even more meaningless than that.
Quote from: simms3 on June 14, 2012, 01:33:12 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2012, 01:27:56 PM
Unfortunately, we blew our densest neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Sugar Hill and LaVilla to bits in the second half of the 20th century. Anyway, I'd take Walkscore with a grain of salt. It weights municipal limits, thus any consolidated city with a large amount of rural and undeveloped land is going to fall to the bottom of the list. Take the pre-consolidated city limits and it will have a much higher Walkscore, although Jax would still not be a walkable mecca compared to the larger cities.
I doubt no matter how they did the rankings Jax would advance much if at all. It needs better pedestrian awareness, better sidewalks, and it needs more places to walk up to in neighborhoods that a little bit denser and that facilitate walking. Charlotte's also real low because outside of downtown and Dilworth it's HORRIBLE, but its walking environments make up for it enough to put it ahead of Jax.
Jacksonville's walkscore is currently 33. I contend that this number is what it is because it combines suburban areas with the actual city of Jacksonville prior to consolidation. If consolidation would have never happened, I believe Jacksonville's numbers would be online with its peers from the 1960s, who's borders have never changed.
Going back to 1960, here is a brief list of peer cities that were around the same physical size or density as pre-consolidated Jacksonville:
Jacksonville - 30.2 square miles; 201,030; 6,657/sq mi
Flint, MI - 29.9 square miles; 196,940; 6,587/sq mi
Worcester, MA - 37.0 square miles; 186,587; 5,043/sq mi
Norfolk, VA - 50.0 square miles; 305,872; 6,117/sq mi
St. Paul, MN - 52.2 square miles; 313,411; 6,004/sq mi
Other than Jacksonville, all of these 1960s peer cities are still virtually the same size (land area) now as they were during the 1960s census. In all cases, their suburban areas have grown significantly since 1960 however, they never merged so that built environment would not drag down their current walkscore numbers.
Here are the walkscore and square mileage numbers of these cities today:
Jacksonville - 33 (767 sq mi)
Flint, MI - 49 (33.6 sq mi)
Worcester, MA - 60 (37.0 sq mi)
Norfolk, VA - 48 (50.0 sq mi)
St. Paul, MN - 62 (52.2 sq mi)
My non-scientific guess is that if Jacksonville never consolidated with its suburbs, it's walkscore would be in the high-40s to low-60s just like its peers who's city limits have remained roughly the same size since 1960. By the same token, if Flint merges with its core county, it's walkscore will immediately drop although the actual built infrastructure and environment is exactly the same. Thus, comparing a consolidated city like Jax with non-consolidated cities like those above aren't going to provide you with accurate comparable data. That's why I take walkscore with a grain of salt. Include your burbs and you'll rank low like Jax. Don't include as many of them by being a boxed in built out city and your walkscore could be as high as Denver's even though nothing physically changed with your built environment.
How does Walkscore handle Miami? It seems to include most of the developed land within Miami-Dade County, which certainly includes a lot of sprawl, yet it ranks #8 on their list.
Miami is a 35.6 square mile built out city (similar to pre-1968 Jacksonville). It's not consolidated like we are today so its walkscore numbers are going to be significantly higher.
This part of the reason the "rankings" are even worse than the scores themselves, as they rank only the 50 biggest cities by their city limit population. Therefore Tampa, St. Pete and Orlando are off the list but Arlington, Texas is on it.
IMO the walkscores can be good for finding walkable neighborhoods within a city, but it's pretty useless for comparison.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Miami is a 35.6 square mile built out city (similar to pre-1968 Jacksonville). It's not consolidated like we are today so its walkscore numbers are going to be significantly higher.
If you type "Miami-Dade County" into their 'get your walk score' box, you get a score of 75.
If you type "Duval County" you get 43.
Something else seems to be going on.
That said, if you search at the zip code level, it seems pretty accurate.
^It's totally screwy. That's even higher than the City of Miami's score of 73. And Duval County's 43 score is significantly higher than the Jacksonville score of 32.6. The Beaches scores don't seem to be enough to account for that.
Also, I just typed in Jacksonville and it came back with a score of 94!
http://www.walkscore.com/score/Jacksonville-Florida
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Quote from: finehoe on June 14, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 14, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Miami is a 35.6 square mile built out city (similar to pre-1968 Jacksonville). It's not consolidated like we are today so its walkscore numbers are going to be significantly higher.
If you type "Miami-Dade County" into their 'get your walk score' box, you get a score of 75.
If you type "Duval County" you get 43.
Something else seems to be going on.
That said, if you search at the zip code level, it seems pretty accurate.
The Park Lane building next to Memorial Park has a WalkScore of 91 because of the Margaret Street/5 Points area. I call the pre-consolidation parts of Jacksonville "Pre-Con Jax". :)
Walk Score is based on density and amenities within or in proximity to a specified cell. It's a formula and it's not perfect, but I'll be damned the output is basically in line with how urban a city is or isn't with a few exceptions. I swear by it. Somehow these kinds of things just work out, even if they're completely unperfect or "shouldn't work". It isn't some Forbes or Men's Health ranking.
And speaking of which Zip Car has rankings now, too. I trust Zip Car, but not as much as Walk Score. Zip Car ranks other things and isn't quite as scientific, but it uses trends it picks up on from its own customers, and that to me is pretty good information. Does Zip Car have a presence in Jacksonville?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 14, 2012, 03:42:04 PM
^It's totally screwy. That's even higher than the City of Miami's score of 73. And Duval County's 43 score is significantly higher than the Jacksonville score of 32.6. The Beaches scores don't seem to be enough to account for that.
Also, I just typed in Jacksonville and it came back with a score of 94!
http://www.walkscore.com/score/Jacksonville-Florida
You couldn't make this stuff up.
I believe, if you're typing in the word "Miami" or "Duval County" you're not getting an average. It's giving you the walkscore of a specific location. But yeah, the walkscore methodology has holes all through it.
Quote from: simms3 on June 14, 2012, 04:07:22 PM
Walk Score is based on density and amenities within or in proximity to a specified cell. It's a formula and it's not perfect, but I'll be damned the output is basically in line with how urban a city is or isn't with a few exceptions. I swear by it. Somehow these kinds of things just work out, even if they're completely unperfect or "shouldn't work". It isn't some Forbes or Men's Health ranking.
It's not in line when comparing consolidated cities with cities that aren't consolidated. In that case, it penalizes consolidated cities by including their rural/suburban numbers while a chunk of suburban areas just outside a smaller built out city isn't included in that city's overall number. However, that's what happens anytime you live and die by "imaginary" municipal limits. I like it for finding walkable neighborhoods in various cities but I'd never use the overall city walkscore numbers to compare to any other place. There are too many flaws in it on that level.
Quote from: simms3 on June 14, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
And speaking of which Zip Car has rankings now, too. I trust Zip Car, but not as much as Walk Score. Zip Car ranks other things and isn't quite as scientific, but it uses trends it picks up on from its own customers, and that to me is pretty good information. Does Zip Car have a presence in Jacksonville?
Nope. Zip Car only has a Florida presence in Gainesville, Miami, Orlando and Tallahassee.
Quote from: simms3 on June 14, 2012, 04:08:51 PM
And speaking of which Zip Car has rankings now, too.
Of what? Walkability?
Again Lakelander my point is that while the methodology is screwy as with any formula based methodology, the output is good, and that's what matters. When you start getting into ranking #30 and up of "most walkable cities" they all start looking the same - equally dismal. The top 10 are pretty solid, the 11-20 are also pretty solid, and 21-30 I would still agree as being above and beyond the rest and ranked mostly appropriately. Of the cities I have been to I might even rank them the same way based on the parts I have seen and explored...so I go by it.
^If you like that, I've got a ouija board and a home phrenology kit to sell you. They'll give you the results you were expecting every time.
Simms3, I guess I'm saying the output isn't good if it's being used to compare the urbanity of cities in general. It's okay if you're trying to pinpoint the most walkable neighborhoods within cities.
For example, from my numerous visits to these cities, Detroit (22) is significantly more walkable than Atlanta (20) and Houston (23). Louisville (41) is significantly more walkable than Raleigh (36). Louisville ranks so low because of its recent consolidation. If it didn't consolidate with Jefferson County in the last 10 years, it would be more walkable but being a second tier city, it wouldn't crack the top 50. However, it's a historically fairly dense urban city. How Houston and Detroit come in near the same number, I have no idea. I guess Detroit's getting hit on the number of vacancies that have occurred since 1950 but even today, it's still denser than both Atlanta and Houston in terms of population. Unfortunately, walkscore only ranks the top 50 cities based on municipal population. A few of these places (like Jax) shouldn't be in this list at all if cities just below the cut like New Orleans were included.